- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:30:33 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hmm.. how long as that been the case? I thought that when we > >> >> originally implemented @defer we ran them before DOMContentLoaded was > >> >> fired for various internal sanity reasons as well as because it gave > >> >> authors better migration paths. > >> >> > >> >> It seems nice to me to be able to depend on that all scripts have run > >> >> by the time that DOMContentLoaded is fired. Except for async scripts > >> >> of course, which are always unreliable as to when and which order > >> >> they execute. I.e. async scripts is an explicit footgun, but I'd > >> >> rather have fewer of those. > >> > > >> > I haven't changed the spec here. I don't really see what we gain by > >> > making the "stop parsing" algorithm different in this way. > >> > >> Different in what way? From what? > > > > Different from what it says now in the way you propose above (having > > appendChild-inserted <script src> element exection delay DOMContentLoaded). > > That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that <script defer > src="..."> and <script defer> elements appearing in the markup and > parsed by the parser should always run before DOMContentLoaded firing. > This appears to be what Firefox does, and I would expect that the web > depends on this. For example I would expect defered to contain > document.write which should not blow away the current page. That's what the spec says, no? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 14:31:07 UTC